This is an excellent post you know. I saw this video of Penn from Penn and Teller…and he asked the same questions. You know, I do tell people. As much as I can or as much as they will listen.
God Must Be Evil 1. The Existence of Suffering If God was all-powerful and all-loving, with free will yet perfectly goodGod would create life with similar properties: Meaning that there would be no human-created evil, and no need for evil, suffering or death in the world in any way.
However, there is evil and death in very great quantities, therefore it holds that if the situation was created by a god then such a god is not omnipotent and benevolent.
Given that such a god exists, it must be malevolent: An evil god, who created life for the sole purpose of watching life suffer. Such a god would make life, in its very essence, impossible to exist without death, violence, suffering and struggle.
Advanced life, especially, would be inherently prone to nastiness, wars, immorality, killing and causing of suffering. As this is how it is in the world, it holds that the existence of such levels of suffering, if it is the result of intelligent design, is thoroughly evil, and to call god "good" is a corruption of the truth.
As it happens, the world is as we would expect it to be if the designer of life was evil. Ancient religious minds also realized this. Gnostic religions such as the Manicheans explained that this world was the creation of an evil God, and that we had to somehow escape from it.
Some people criticize this, asking, if the world was designed by an evil God, why is there some happiness and goodness in the world? Why isn't the world purely evil, with only suffering?
The world, he might say, was created by a wicked demiurge [who] created some virtuous men, in order that they might be punished by the wicked; for the punishment of the virtuous is so great an evil that it makes the world worse than if no good men existed.
What an immense profusion of beings animated and organized, sensible and active!
But inspect a little more narrowly these living essences How hostile and destructive to each other! How insufficient all of them for their own happiness! Tying the very existence of life with the necessary killing of other life is the work of an evil genius, not of an all-powerful and all-loving god.
All life dies - all biological life decays, erodes, fades, becomes diseased and ill if it does not sustain itself. To sustain itself nearly all life, except the least living elements of life, kills and eats other life. If not this, then it consumes biological matter at the expense of other living beings; the fight for food is also a case of living beings being required to outdo each other merely to survive.
If life was created, and not simply the result of undirected unconscious evolution as seems sensiblethis is surely the worst possible way to have created life. It appears very much that life cannot survive without causing suffering for other life.
A god could not have created a more vicious cycle if it tried: Tying the very existence of life with the necessary killing of other life is the work of an evil genius, not of an all-powerful and all-loving godthat could choose if it wanted to sustain all life immediately and forever with manna from heaven.
But it seems such an all-powerful good god doesn't exist. Life exists as a precarious balance of self-replicating chemicals, and such a balancing game is always bound to be temporary, pending major technological discoveries or serious and continuous genetic engineering. That such extreme measures have to be taken to prolong life is evidence to the fact that life is incidental to the universe, a by-product that exists due purely due to statistical likelihood, and that life is temporary is because all the physical constructs of the universe are temporary.
However, if a deity was believed in, it would be sensible to assume that it was evil and created life as such a disharmony in order to cause the suffering and pain of living beings.The Conquest of Happiness, , by Bertrand Russell (Full Text) Japanese Translation of The Conquest of Happiness (with English text) On Education, especially in early childhood, (full text).
What is philosophy? What is philosophy for?
How should philosophy be done? These are metaphilosophical questions, metaphilosophy being the study of the nature of philosophy. Pantheism, determinism, neutral monism, psychophysical parallelism, intellectual and religious freedom, separation of church and state, criticism of Mosaic authorship of some books of the Hebrew Bible, political society as derived from power (not contract), affect, natura naturans/natura naturata.
By Leslie Evans. It is with a certain sadness that I come to write this. George Bernard Shaw, through his plays, was one of my early heroes. I knew only the good of him then. Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell, OM FRS (/ ˈ r ʌ s əl /; 18 May – 2 February ) was a British philosopher, logician, mathematician, historian, writer, social critic, political activist, and Nobel laureate.
Death quotes and epitaphs. Funerals and wills "The reason so many people showed up at his funeral was because they wanted to make sure he was dead.".